Is there a problem? Absolutely. Does the government need to do something to fix it? Absolutely. What does government need to do? Get out of the way.
How do I justify this as a Catholic theologian (and not one with a degree, at that)? Quite simple. The free market is the best economic tool we (humanity) currently have for upholding human dignity in interactions between individuals and organizations through the freedom to contract.
Why has our money supply suddenly become constricted? As near as I can tell because of combination of bad or inept regulation, including:
1) government mandated mortgages to "empower" poor people to buy a home
2) government mandated current list pricing for mortgage securities, which in a stalled market is impossible to assess, resulting in the appearance of a lot more "bad" loans than are really there.
3) quasi/government banks (Fannie and Freddie May) showing exactly why government has no place participating in the free market because there is no one to watch for abuse in the free market when the government is involved. (so why would we EVER turn to the government to do more of the same with a bailout?)
The crisis seems to lie in the regulation usurping people's ability to freely make contracts. Government, get out of the way. Human dignity demands no less.
(For any puzzled by the theology and Catholic social teaching principles refered to here, please see here for all Catholic social teaching posts.
For an intriguing counter-view see here. Kudos to Fr. Dowd for weighing in, and it's well worth noting that we share a common faith and mission. He does a good job of explaining that our problem is a constricted money supply. He's right. But WHY do we have a restricted money supply? Giving more blood to a patient with clogged arteries won't increase the blood flow. What's needed here is angioplasty.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
The Sky Is Falling? The Sky is Falling?
Chicken Little resides in Washington and doesn't seem to understand our free market economy. The sky is falling! We have to spend $700 billion!
Out of political self interest, numerous politicians on both sides in the House said no bailout (HUGE kudos to those who voted on principle!). The market fell, but nowhere near a percentage record. And this morning it rebounds slightly. Predictions of world markets collapsing were greatly exaggerated. The bloated, self importance of our political leaders seems befuddled. I don't begin to understand the details of what is happening or why. I don't really even try. I stay focused on the big picture -- which as near as I can tell is this:
What seems true is our economy needs a cleansing laxative and some good hearty fiber to get things moving again. $700 billion in government bailout is just more clogging fat.
If our market is so free of restrictive regulation, why aren't people with cash snatching up the undervalued mortgage assets? If I had a few hundred million lying around, I'd happily remove a billion or two of "bad" debt from banks' books to help get things moving again. There is some reason people in such a position aren't snatching these bargains up -- in a truly free market, they would. And our economy would have the cleansing laxative it desperately needs. Instead, something, somewhere (regulation perhaps, or the fear of regulation?) prevents the market from self correcting.
Again, I'm no economist, but from what I've come to understand about Catholic thought dating back to Aquinas and further, the ability to freely enter into agreements with others (regardless of scale) is essential to human dignity and anything that gets in the way of that ability undermines human dignity. Always. (See Thomas E. Woods' "The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy"; Michael Novak's "The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism"; and Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom")
Government's right and proper role is to 1) define the rules of the market 2) uphold the rules of the market. That's it. The government defines and defends the boundaries of the free market sandbox.
If and when the government overplays its role (see above), regardless of how well intentioned, the result is always worse that would would have happened without intervention. This is simple economic science.
A truly free market (which ours is arguably not for an abundance of regulation) organically corrects and adjusts to any given situation -- this one included. This can and does mean the loss and making of fortunes and the reality that many people will loose what they have earned. Risk and reward are inherent parts of the system. We can not have reward without risk in any just system.
This leads me to a few simple questions:
Why did mortgage securities suddenly loose value? Have these homes suddenly been flooded, burned, or destroyed? No. Have tens of millions of people suddenly defaulted on their mortgages? No. 95% of mortgaged home owners are in good standing. The answer lies in regulation: Suddenly no one knows the value of these mortgages securities because of a regulation requiring valuation on the current market. Current markets have stalled, so there is no current value. Yet most of those assets have substantial value and are performing assets. The "bad paper" isn't bad at all -- it just looks bad because of bad regulation.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Perhaps our government is working exactly as it's supposed to
Today the House rejected a $700 billion bailout. 40% of Democrats and 67% of Republicans rejected it. And the argument has become a complex version of more vs. less regulation.
I'm no economist. I'm a theologian. As I've said below, I am highly skeptical of any measure which affords more power to our government. Why?
One simple question: If this financial crisis is the result of too little regulation, why is it the most regulated institutions/banks who failed? Regulation does not work. The government is great at usurping power and horrible at getting anything done.
Perhaps our government is working exactly as it's supposed to in this financial crisis.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Dialogue Begins
Note: I've learned that Ramon Tulio is a literary device by a blogger to humorously discuss Catholic Social Teaching. I've decided to leave this interaction up because it is reflective of interactions I've had with real people in various areas of social justice, from Pax Christi to a real professor at Regis University. However, I will not knowing engage in dialogue with fictional persona. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Thank you, Ironic Catholic, for the chance to have a hearty laugh at myself! Grin.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prof. Ramon Tulio here. Dcn Patrick, I like this attempt to visualize the principles here. I do have one comment. Although many, including myself, would agree with you regarding the centrality of the life and dignity of the human person, I think there may be a reason the Compendium has four principles. Perhaps the source and summit, as you say, is ultimately Eucharistic...not just in systematic theology but also Catholic Social Teaching. Our life in the world is a step into the paschal mystery, if you take discipleship seriously...the paschal mystery is the pattern of our lives and the imitation of Christ in our various states of life.
This is all a long way to say that I'd rather keep that Eucharistic center in the middle of it all, and allow the four principles the Compendium allows.
It's interesting that the Compendium has these four principles...whittled down from the seven principles in the USCCB's Sharing Catholic Social Teaching...whittled down from popular articulations of 10 or more!
I agree the principles need to be held in balance.
More later (re: the above posts), Thanks for all the work on my favorite subject!
--Professor Tulio
Dear Professor Tulio,
Thank you for engaging in this dialogue. It is well worth celebrating the common faith and mission we share -- for it is within that common ground that we exchange these ideas.
If I'm understanding what you wrote above, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you make two primary points: Eucharist as the center of it all and the subsequent flattening of the four principles -- the elimination of the three-legged stool concept. I see the first as excellent but incomplete, and the second as mistaken.
To your first point, Jesus our Christ is at the center, is the source and summit, of all Catholic teaching. Eucharist and human dignity are inseparable from who Jesus our Christ is. The act of Eucharist and the anthropology of being both divine and human (a simple way of defining human dignity) are unique revelations that are essential for knowing who Christ is by nature and who we are called to be by grace.
Your first point is well taken: I could say it better than I do and will change that in my paper.
Which brings me to your second point. If I am understanding you correctly, you are pushing back against the notion that human dignity is the preeminent principle among the 4 permanent principles. The Compendium itself refutes this: human dignity is “the foundation of all other principles and content of the Church’s social doctrine” (Compendium, #160).
Indeed, the USCCB's "Sharing Catholic Social Teaching" states: "These principles build on the foundation of Catholic social teaching: the dignity of human life. This central Catholic principle requires that we measure every policy, every institution, and every action by whether it protects human life and enhances human dignity, especially for the poor and vulnerable." Clearly upholding human dignity is the central principle of Catholic Social Teaching.
You mention these four principles have been whittled down from the seven given by the USCCB's "Sharing Catholic Social Teaching" (and from other, larger lists of principles). There is one problem with this: subsidiarity is not among those seven (which are: Dignity and Live of the Human Person, Call to Family, Community, and Participation, Rights and Responsibilities, Option for the Poor and Vulnerable, Dignity of Work and Rights of Workers, Solidarity, and Care of God's Creation). It is mentioned once, in passing, under "Care for God's Creation." Frankly, I'm puzzled by the document's neglecting to highlight one of the four permanent principles.
These four are not whittled down from anything. Saying so is like saying breathing, eating, and drinking are a whittled down list of biological activities. Hardly. They are the essential structure upon which all other principles of Catholic Social Teaching must be positioned. Without any one of them, Human dignity dies. All Catholic social teaching principles serve to uphold human dignity, and all principles outside the permanent four must meet the demands of each of the three pillars in order to uphold human dignity. Indeed, I don't believe we can discuss any principle or assess an action in regards to Catholic Social Teaching without mentioning how it either relates to or upholds human dignity and meets the three pillars of common good, subsidiarity, and solidarity.
If I'm understanding what you wrote above, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you make two primary points: Eucharist as the center of it all and the subsequent flattening of the four principles -- the elimination of the three-legged stool concept. I see the first as excellent but incomplete, and the second as mistaken.
To your first point, Jesus our Christ is at the center, is the source and summit, of all Catholic teaching. Eucharist and human dignity are inseparable from who Jesus our Christ is. The act of Eucharist and the anthropology of being both divine and human (a simple way of defining human dignity) are unique revelations that are essential for knowing who Christ is by nature and who we are called to be by grace.
Your first point is well taken: I could say it better than I do and will change that in my paper.
Which brings me to your second point. If I am understanding you correctly, you are pushing back against the notion that human dignity is the preeminent principle among the 4 permanent principles. The Compendium itself refutes this: human dignity is “the foundation of all other principles and content of the Church’s social doctrine” (Compendium, #160).
Indeed, the USCCB's "Sharing Catholic Social Teaching" states: "These principles build on the foundation of Catholic social teaching: the dignity of human life. This central Catholic principle requires that we measure every policy, every institution, and every action by whether it protects human life and enhances human dignity, especially for the poor and vulnerable." Clearly upholding human dignity is the central principle of Catholic Social Teaching.
You mention these four principles have been whittled down from the seven given by the USCCB's "Sharing Catholic Social Teaching" (and from other, larger lists of principles). There is one problem with this: subsidiarity is not among those seven (which are: Dignity and Live of the Human Person, Call to Family, Community, and Participation, Rights and Responsibilities, Option for the Poor and Vulnerable, Dignity of Work and Rights of Workers, Solidarity, and Care of God's Creation). It is mentioned once, in passing, under "Care for God's Creation." Frankly, I'm puzzled by the document's neglecting to highlight one of the four permanent principles.
These four are not whittled down from anything. Saying so is like saying breathing, eating, and drinking are a whittled down list of biological activities. Hardly. They are the essential structure upon which all other principles of Catholic Social Teaching must be positioned. Without any one of them, Human dignity dies. All Catholic social teaching principles serve to uphold human dignity, and all principles outside the permanent four must meet the demands of each of the three pillars in order to uphold human dignity. Indeed, I don't believe we can discuss any principle or assess an action in regards to Catholic Social Teaching without mentioning how it either relates to or upholds human dignity and meets the three pillars of common good, subsidiarity, and solidarity.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Freedom Primary to Human Dignity
Freedom to choose who we associate with, what we do and how we do it, so long as we do not usurp the rights of others is foundational to the human experience. That's why subsidiarity is so critical to upholding human dignity. The largest usurper of individual freedoms is our government.
Catholic Social Teaching tells us we should be extremely leery of any institution larger than the family taking to it power that rightly belongs to the family or the individual. Advocates of social justice often extoll a larger government role for addressing our poor through government programs, or interference with individuals rights to freely negotiate contracts with each other (minimum wage laws). What they fail to realize is that such actions infringe on our fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of our poor (they also, as near as I can tell, tend to have the opposite, negative, effect on our poors' economic status). This undermines human dignity and only serves to repress equal opportunity rather than promote it.
The chart below shows that the larger the institution the less power it ought to have, affording individuals the maximum amount of freedom (as shown by the green triangle). However, there is a strong tendency for larger institutions to take to themselves rights, privleges, and responsibilities that justly belong in the free market, private organizations, family, or individuals (as shown by the dashed triangle).
We should be deeply concerned anytime additional power is sought by any institution larger than family. We should also be fighting to return all rights, powers, and responsibilities to the free market, private organizations, family, and the individual that can be owned at those levels.
As we come to truly understand how many of the solutions Catholics often currently advocate actually undermine human dignity, then we can begin to look for actions that can more fully uphold human dignity. Only through mutual collaboration and dialogue will we advance human dignity as much as possible.
Subsidiarity?
Subsidiarity is one of the 4 foundational principles of Catholic Social Teaching. Of the four, it is the black sheep. It's there, but no one really ever talks about it. Why? I don't know. It's absolutely essential to upholding human dignity.
In theological geek speak subsidiarity is the responsibility of society to realize the fullest potential of the smallest
groupings, down to the family and individual, by placing ownership at the smallest feasible and
practical level. Indeed, not only is it the responsibility of smaller groupings to claim and act upon
their local authority, but it is the responsibilownership at smaller levels as required.
In common speak, subsidiarity is "power to the people."
Misconceptions of subsidiarity abound. Among them, I focus on three:
One misconception of subsidiarity is that if a needed responsibility is not being met by society,
including the free market, then the state, as owner of last resort, has permission and moral
mandate to take ownership of meeting the collective responsibility. Wrong. Subsidiarity requires
the state to take measures to encourage and support ownership at a lower level. An example of
this misunderstanding is our current system of social welfare is bloated, impersonal, and
ineffective in empowering people beyond poverty, and it actually undermines human dignity
because it fails to meet the test of subsidiarity, which states that the more local and freely entered
the solution, the more fully human dignity is upheld. It is the State’s responsibility to promote
and support ownership at the smallest feasible and practical (practicable) level. In general, this
means creating and supporting free choice endeavors within the free market. The state has at its
disposal a variety of tools (many of which are likely underdeveloped and poorly understood for
lack of experience and require further development) including: tax incentives and voucher
systems.
Another misconception of subsidiarity presumes a false dichotomy: either we meet society’s
responsibility via the State or we leave it to individuals to choose to overcome the obstacles
before them. This erroneous dichotomy has led to the classic belief that all people who oppose
social welfare programs are crudely saying our poor “should pull themselves up by their own
boot straps.” Again, wrong. There are a vast number of unexplored possibilities for meeting our
collective responsibility and they are to be found somewhere between the State and the
individual.
Finally, a third misconception of subsidiarity confuses applying subsidiarity to the method of
selection vs. to the potential solutions themselves. For example, in Colorado’s November 2006
elections we had a statewide initiative increasing taxes and increasing the state’s social welfare
programs. When I asked a well formed Catholic leader of the initiative how subsidiarity applied,
they informed me that it had been applied, as it was being voted on by the people. This is an
example of applying subsidiarity to the method of selection (voting by the people) but not to the
potential solutions themselves. In effect voting had passed the test of subsidiarity but it had never
been applied to potential solution of a tax increase. By this way of thinking, any measure on the
ballot, including a shift to totalitarian dictatorship, passes the test of subsidiarity. Clearly, this is
an example of confusing the process of selection with the the proposed action itself.
These three misconceptions illustrate both the lack of development and understudying of
subsidiarity within Catholic theology and part of the reason for such lack. Herein lies the greatest
challenge to both this model and to people’s willingness to explore and understand it:
Subsidiarity has a lot to say about solutions we currently support as socially just, but which
subsidiarity shows us actually leaves human dignity tottering on a two-legged stool. The
challenge before us is to become willing to take a new look at social issues to which we thought
we knew the solutions. If we want to uphold human dignity as fully as possible, we need to let go
of some of our current answers and venture into unknown territory in search of answers.subsidiarity shows us actually leaves human dignity tottering on a two-legged stool. The
challenge before us is to become willing to take a new look at social issues to which we thought
we knew the solutions. If we want to uphold human dignity as fully as possible, we needof some of our current answers and venture into unknown territory in search of answers.
In theological geek speak subsidiarity is the responsibility of society to realize the fullest potential of the smallest
groupings, down to the family and individual, by placing ownership at the smallest feasible and
practical level. Indeed, not only is it the responsibility of smaller groupings to claim and act upon
their local authority, but it is the responsibilownership at smaller levels as required.
In common speak, subsidiarity is "power to the people."
Misconceptions of subsidiarity abound. Among them, I focus on three:
One misconception of subsidiarity is that if a needed responsibility is not being met by society,
including the free market, then the state, as owner of last resort, has permission and moral
mandate to take ownership of meeting the collective responsibility. Wrong. Subsidiarity requires
the state to take measures to encourage and support ownership at a lower level. An example of
this misunderstanding is our current system of social welfare is bloated, impersonal, and
ineffective in empowering people beyond poverty, and it actually undermines human dignity
because it fails to meet the test of subsidiarity, which states that the more local and freely entered
the solution, the more fully human dignity is upheld. It is the State’s responsibility to promote
and support ownership at the smallest feasible and practical (practicable) level. In general, this
means creating and supporting free choice endeavors within the free market. The state has at its
disposal a variety of tools (many of which are likely underdeveloped and poorly understood for
lack of experience and require further development) including: tax incentives and voucher
systems.
Another misconception of subsidiarity presumes a false dichotomy: either we meet society’s
responsibility via the State or we leave it to individuals to choose to overcome the obstacles
before them. This erroneous dichotomy has led to the classic belief that all people who oppose
social welfare programs are crudely saying our poor “should pull themselves up by their own
boot straps.” Again, wrong. There are a vast number of unexplored possibilities for meeting our
collective responsibility and they are to be found somewhere between the State and the
individual.
Finally, a third misconception of subsidiarity confuses applying subsidiarity to the method of
selection vs. to the potential solutions themselves. For example, in Colorado’s November 2006
elections we had a statewide initiative increasing taxes and increasing the state’s social welfare
programs. When I asked a well formed Catholic leader of the initiative how subsidiarity applied,
they informed me that it had been applied, as it was being voted on by the people. This is an
example of applying subsidiarity to the method of selection (voting by the people) but not to the
potential solutions themselves. In effect voting had passed the test of subsidiarity but it had never
been applied to potential solution of a tax increase. By this way of thinking, any measure on the
ballot, including a shift to totalitarian dictatorship, passes the test of subsidiarity. Clearly, this is
an example of confusing the process of selection with the the proposed action itself.
These three misconceptions illustrate both the lack of development and understudying of
subsidiarity within Catholic theology and part of the reason for such lack. Herein lies the greatest
challenge to both this model and to people’s willingness to explore and understand it:
Subsidiarity has a lot to say about solutions we currently support as socially just, but which
subsidiarity shows us actually leaves human dignity tottering on a two-legged stool. The
challenge before us is to become willing to take a new look at social issues to which we thought
we knew the solutions. If we want to uphold human dignity as fully as possible, we need to let go
of some of our current answers and venture into unknown territory in search of answers.subsidiarity shows us actually leaves human dignity tottering on a two-legged stool. The
challenge before us is to become willing to take a new look at social issues to which we thought
we knew the solutions. If we want to uphold human dignity as fully as possible, we needof some of our current answers and venture into unknown territory in search of answers.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Tests for Each Leg of the Stool
(Click a picture to see it full size)
The above are tests I propose (which are inherently subjective and a tool for dialogue, not a tool for finality) for assessing if a given action upholds each aspect of human dignity. Their primary usefulness is as a dialogue tool, providing a common foundation from which to begin talking with someone who disagrees with you about raising minimum wage, so you can begin to understand where and why you disagree, why there are holes in your approach or theirs, and perhaps to begin seeing what needs to happen to create an action that more fully upholds human dignity than we currently have.
Care to participate in that dialogue? Feel free to dive in in the comments section. For the whole schtick, please see my Model of Catholic Social Teaching.
How Does this Stool Help?
So, we've got this three-legged stool. what do we do with it?
For starters, we can now see that we need all three legs for the stool to remain standing - to uphold human dignity.
Common good, subsidiarity, and solidarity form a trinitarian means of assessing and refining an actions ability to uphold human dignity. The more fully each is present, the stronger the upholding of human dignity. Each principle is its own person in upholding the one goal of human dignity. Each interrelates with the other two, yet is distinct from them. We cannot truly talk about one without referencing the others (though it is possible, and even common, to neglect one, generally subsidiarity).
The stool helps because it becomes a tool for dialogue on any given possible social action and how well it actually upholds human dignity. The stool becomes helpful because it begins to show us the shortcomings of the solutions we often advocate in the name of social justice. It becomes useful in that it can challenge us to find new and better ways to uphold human dignity rather than ignorantly supporting actions which actually undermine human dignity.
A Three-Legged Stool to Uphold Human Dignity
I believe Catholic social teaching is wondrously rich and deep and offers us far more moral guidance than we perhaps think it does. However, to unlock this richness, we have to understand the inherant structure of the various principles involved and how they relate with each other.
We have the teaching of Jesus our Christ, the many and various writings of our Saints and papal encyclicals from relatively modern times. These are the source of our beautiful, living, breathing Catholic social teaching.
The Compendium offers us a first glimpse at what an underlying structure of these many principles might be. Catholic Social teaching has four “permanent principles”: human dignity, common good, subsidiarity, and solidarity. These are “the very heart of Catholic social teaching” and human dignity is “the foundation of all other principles and content of the Church’s social doctrine” (Compendium, #160).
Clearly, any systemic approach to Catholic social teaching must have human dignity as its foundation and any social action must have the upholding of everyone’s human dignity as the measure of its goodness. To borrow a phrase from Eucharistic theology, human dignity is the source and summit of Catholic social teaching and praxis.
That leaves us with the three permanent principles: common good, subsidiarity, and solidarity. Understanding how these three relate to each other and to human dignity is the obvious next step to creating a systematic understanding of Catholic social teaching.
Based on my understanding of these concepts and the overall way in which they are presented, albeit largely, if not entirely, independent of one another, I believe these three remaining permanent principles are mutually essential to the upholding of human dignity. Like the three legs of a stool holding up the seat upon which a person rests, these three pillars of human dignity are each required if a particular action is to uphold the dignity of the human person. Should any one be missing to any degree, the stool falls, and we've failed to uphold human dignity.
If this model is true, then any and all understanding and application of Catholic Social Teaching must show how it upholds all three pillars in order to show it upholds human dignity. The natural result of this is highly subjective, and requires a lot of dialogue.
Care to participate in that dialogue? Feel free to dive in in the comments section. For the whole schtick, please see my Model of Catholic Social Teaching.
The Compendium offers us a first glimpse at what an underlying structure of these many principles might be. Catholic Social teaching has four “permanent principles”: human dignity, common good, subsidiarity, and solidarity. These are “the very heart of Catholic social teaching” and human dignity is “the foundation of all other principles and content of the Church’s social doctrine” (Compendium, #160).
Clearly, any systemic approach to Catholic social teaching must have human dignity as its foundation and any social action must have the upholding of everyone’s human dignity as the measure of its goodness. To borrow a phrase from Eucharistic theology, human dignity is the source and summit of Catholic social teaching and praxis.
That leaves us with the three permanent principles: common good, subsidiarity, and solidarity. Understanding how these three relate to each other and to human dignity is the obvious next step to creating a systematic understanding of Catholic social teaching.
Based on my understanding of these concepts and the overall way in which they are presented, albeit largely, if not entirely, independent of one another, I believe these three remaining permanent principles are mutually essential to the upholding of human dignity. Like the three legs of a stool holding up the seat upon which a person rests, these three pillars of human dignity are each required if a particular action is to uphold the dignity of the human person. Should any one be missing to any degree, the stool falls, and we've failed to uphold human dignity.
If this model is true, then any and all understanding and application of Catholic Social Teaching must show how it upholds all three pillars in order to show it upholds human dignity. The natural result of this is highly subjective, and requires a lot of dialogue.
Care to participate in that dialogue? Feel free to dive in in the comments section. For the whole schtick, please see my Model of Catholic Social Teaching.
How our Church Fails to Uphold Human Dignity
Note: I've learned that Ramon Tulio is a literary device by a blogger to humorously discuss Catholic Social Teaching. I've decided to leave this interaction up because it is reflective of interactions I've had with real people in various areas of social justice, from Pax Christi to a real professor at Regis University. However, I will not knowing engage in dialogue with fictional persona. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Thank you, Ironic Catholic, for the chance to have a hearty laugh at myself! Grin.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kudos to Professor Ramon Tulio for teaching Catholic Social Teaching via the Ironic Catholic. We need more of that. Unfortunately, Professor Tulio does not stick to Catholic Social Teaching, but throws in poor logic and reasoning. Referring to the financial crisis that came to a near boiling point last week, he says:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kudos to Professor Ramon Tulio for teaching Catholic Social Teaching via the Ironic Catholic. We need more of that. Unfortunately, Professor Tulio does not stick to Catholic Social Teaching, but throws in poor logic and reasoning. Referring to the financial crisis that came to a near boiling point last week, he says:
"And capitalism without much regulation--as it has been practiced in the past handful of years--has clearly hurt many families and communities, and has played havoc with workers' rights. Wall Street just had a big mammon orgy and now we're all going to pay...and many have been "paying" for years, inside the United States and out."Where to start? First, I make some presumptions on knowledge of Catholic Social Teaching, which can be found here. Also, the Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church may be helpful.
"Capitalism without much regulation." Really? Compared to what? Many economists argue we have far too much regulation, that the government's role is to create safe boundaries and make sure everyone plays by the rules inside those boundaries, and stop regulating anything else.
Catholic social teaching gives us four primary principles: human dignity, which is upheld through mutual, synergistic application of the common good, subsidiarity, and solidarity. Often theologians say we need to uphold the common good, as if it is the preeminent principle of the four. It's not. Human dignity is what we need to uphold.
Every time government takes more power to itself, we have to look toward the principle of subsidiarity. Is government usurping a role and responsibility that can legitimately be done elsewhere? Rather than running to government as the answer, Catholic social teaching urges us to strongly question what is truly necessary for government to do. In today's economic climate we ought to be asking just what roles and responsibilities has the government wrongly taken to itself?
"Capitalism ... has clearly hurt many families and communities." This is utterly false. Capitalism is simply a means for individuals to freely negotiate the exchange of goods and services. Capitalism hasn't hurt anybody. People sinning has hurt many families and communities, most often their own. Think of it this way: if two people met in the foyer of your parish, shook hands, and then one mugged the other, would you blame the foyer? No. Would the police need to step in and regulate who comes in? No. You'd blame the mugger's choice to mug and request the government do it's proper job of enforcing the law by arresting and prosecuting the perpetrator.
We would be wise to note that while capitalism is a neutral system of economics, which in itself does not infringe upon human dignity (and indeed affords it tremendous opportunity to be upheld), socialism inherently undermines human dignity because it's very tenets usurp the rights and privileges of individuals and families, including right to the fruit of one's labor and private ownership. Socialism is inherently inhuman, and thus inherently evil.
"Capitalism ... has played havoc with worker's rights." Again, really? It's against worker's rights to have the freedom to negotiate work for wealth? Or to move anywhere they wish, train in any area they wish, push and sacrifice to support their family by any moral means possible? Because that's what capitalism offers. The justice of capitalism isn't that every job affords a just wage (whatever that is in application) or the perfect schedule. The justice of capitalism is that every job offers the dignity of freedom to choose, and that choice always and everywhere includes the option to strive for more and better.
Our Failure as a Church
As a Church, we fail to understand our role to help people overcome their poverty, whatever that may be. We have to do a better job of increasing our moral authority so our voice helps shape the morality of those who do business. We have to do a better job of striving to remove barriers between people and their ability to obtain the job they want and are capable of. We would do well to understand our own social teaching and learn from the tremendous wisdom it offers us. We would also do well to better understand capitalism and economics.
To the extent that we advocate actions which undermine subsidiarity and thus human dignity (often in the name of upholding the common good), and the the extent to which we fail to help remove the many and various poverties which prevent us and others from achieving our fullest human potential, we contribute to the failing and suffering of our economy and society. Of course until the Second Coming, we will continue to fail, but perhaps we can get better at failing less.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Catholic Vote
Human dignity is the decisive issue of this campaign (and every one). Vote your conscience this November.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
A National Course in True Women's Studies
Sarah Palin is taking Feminists to school. On the lesson plan: how to be a strong, powerful, compassionate woman who strives and struggles to balance family and work as she serves principles and a God beyond herself and her self interest. You do not need to give up being feminine, a mom, or a wife to be powerful and successful.
Many women already quietly know this. They are typically younger than 50 and were raised seeing the sense of entitlement of their mother's generation and saw it as playing the role of the victim. They wanted true equality, and quietly began going about it. These are the real studies in women.
Here's more information that you ever wanted to know about me. I doubled majored at university, one of them being a women's studies major. That was an adventure! I was the first male to graduate with such a beast from the University of Denver. Why did I do this? Because I wanted to understand the feminist movement. So I entered the lioness' den.
There are one story which sums up my lessons in my research.
The professor drew a spiral on the board, describing how women's lives in the past always revolved around a man. First her father, then her husband, and that her life was never her own. The professor's answer? Put "self" in the center.
At the end of class, I went up, erased "self" and put a cross. Anything less and we serve a false god. Be wary of anyone who puts themselves in the center. That's the beauty of Palin and the myriad of other women who are the true women's rights advocates -- they serve God rather than themselves and women's rights. Perhaps they serve through raising a family and supporting their husbands. Perhaps through a career. Perhaps both. And sometimes they answer the call of a town and a state crying out for leadership.
Whatever your stance on her politics, we are all in school with Professor Palin. Not only can she teach us what it is to be a woman in today's world, she can reveal what it is to be human.
Many women already quietly know this. They are typically younger than 50 and were raised seeing the sense of entitlement of their mother's generation and saw it as playing the role of the victim. They wanted true equality, and quietly began going about it. These are the real studies in women.
Here's more information that you ever wanted to know about me. I doubled majored at university, one of them being a women's studies major. That was an adventure! I was the first male to graduate with such a beast from the University of Denver. Why did I do this? Because I wanted to understand the feminist movement. So I entered the lioness' den.
There are one story which sums up my lessons in my research.
The professor drew a spiral on the board, describing how women's lives in the past always revolved around a man. First her father, then her husband, and that her life was never her own. The professor's answer? Put "self" in the center.
At the end of class, I went up, erased "self" and put a cross. Anything less and we serve a false god. Be wary of anyone who puts themselves in the center. That's the beauty of Palin and the myriad of other women who are the true women's rights advocates -- they serve God rather than themselves and women's rights. Perhaps they serve through raising a family and supporting their husbands. Perhaps through a career. Perhaps both. And sometimes they answer the call of a town and a state crying out for leadership.
Whatever your stance on her politics, we are all in school with Professor Palin. Not only can she teach us what it is to be a woman in today's world, she can reveal what it is to be human.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
